What games are you playing now?

March 29th, 2013, 00:37

Originally Posted by Menigal
Well, that knocks it down a few notches on my to-buy list. I find it hard to pay good money for a game that actively punishes me for needing to stop playing whenever I need to.

It's especially irritating to me in this case because this is the 3rd game in the series, and it uses the same engine as the previous games. So why make such a change?

That said, I still highly recommend the game. It's definitely worth the full price.

More control of the time of saving makes it easier to build and debug. As games become more complex with more states and interacting systems, I am not surprised that this sort of checkpoint system is becoming the norm. Because it's easier and cheaper. We have to push for save anywhere and anytime otherwise it will get dropped. It's the sort of thing devs can easily hide under the feature hype rug.

Personally, I am finally getting into Starcraft II. The singleplayer campaign is just great.

In coop me and my friends have taken up Torchlight II again after a long break and we are having quite fun but there are a couple of nuisances. Like how I hate how they made inventory trading so hard because four guys announcing their loot via voice take bloody ages compared to just dumping it all on the ground like regular games.

On the side we actually went back to Raven Shield and Open Transport Tycoon Deluxe (OTTD) depending on how much time we got.

-- Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine

yeah autosaves suck, dealing w/ that in the TR reboot. I cant be totally anal-retentive and redo certain sections over and over again because I don't feel I've done it right.

Even worse is when you get die at a save checkpoint, then when the game reloads youre actually a little farther than you were when you died. Youre now past the gate, or up the stairs, or down the street. You don't get a chance to retry fighting that particular battle again, the enemies just arent there and you have magically been reborn. I really hate that

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I don't know what the quote means, but in terms of how the genre is being used for story delivery - Bioshock Infinite is definitely a step up.

As for the shooter elements, no, I don't think it breaks much new ground. Well, except that I think the Sky Lines is a novel concept - and the Elizabeth companion is something I haven't seen done that way (or that well) in a shooter.

That is my basic take - Bioshock wasn't much of a shooter to begin with, but that was never the point. It was wrapping a shooter up with an engaging and evolving story. And I agree that this one does it very well.

I also didn't think I was getting this, and then last Friday I get an email from my 2K contact saying they planned a Steam code for me and BAM …

Originally Posted by JDR13
It's especially irritating to me in this case because this is the 3rd game in the series, and it uses the same engine as the previous games. So why make such a change?

That said, I still highly recommend the game. It's definitely worth the full price.

Speaking of same engine - I am having a blast playing this on a HP Elitebook 2570p - Core i5 mid-level, Intel HD4000 integrated graphics … and it looks and plays great! I expected total failure and to have to use my gaming laptop.

Originally Posted by Nameless one
I have very fond memories of this one,it was best tactical shooter back then,I am sorry both ghost recon and rainbow six series went from pretty hardcore tactical shooters to call of duty clones.

How it hold up today, did it aged well?

Reasonably well I would say. There's a Raven Shield 2.0 mod that improves a lot of things, including textures. The graphics is ok for it's time which is ok even if the game lacks shaders and shadows. I have some jumping textures but it's ok. The game was made while the developers still tried to make the most advanced tactical simulation on the market and it's the peak of that type. We bought the game from Steam for just $4.99 and got more hours out from it than more expensive titles. It's a good sidegame since you can just shoot some terrorists once in awhile. We often take a round before or after playing the heavier campaigngames (like Borderlands) we play as the "main event", like when we wait for someone or someone have to leave early.

-- Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine

Playing through Bioshock Infinite, and I think I'm quite near the end, but I think I have to restart the game. I've made the mistake of starting the game on 1999 mode, and kept hitting walls of difficulty, but somehow I managed to push through. But this time I'm not sure I can.

The most difficult enemy in the game for me is the Handyman, as he kills me in 2-3 hits, and so far I've managed to kill them by exploiting the environment, but in this particular area I can't anymore. There's loads of floating barges filled with guys with RPGs (and they're the best armored minions in the game I found), plus the Handyman keeps running around after me and the only moment of respite I get is sliding on the sky-lines, that is until he electrocutes them and forces me down.

But what's really killing me, is losing about 100 dollars every time I die and get resurrected. And I also lost my shotgun since I mistakenly took the sniper rifle in a previous level and the game either decided to take the shotgun away from where I think I left it, or I just don't know where the hell I left it.

Anyway, and I'm pondering restarting the game over, on a easier difficulty. Dammit. Maybe I'll just wait for the DLC packs which are supposed to be released and start over then.

Other than the difficulty issues, I'm loving the game. The world just oozes atmosphere and style. The story seems very interesting and weird, which is exactly what I like in a story. I like how it presents issues of racism, the clash between classes of people, etc.

My most favorite moment I think was

Spoiler

when you get to Lady Compstock's memorial and Mozart's Lacrimosa starts playing. Amazing scene. I also liked when you find the guitar and Booker starts playing it, with Elizabeth start to sing. It's moments like that, that really give the game it's soul.

DArtagnan

Hey DArt, you're probably the best one to answer this:
Does Bioshock3 have the engrossing atmosphere of Bioshock1 (and to a little lesser extent, Bioshock2)? Don't really care about the shooter mechanics since I totally suck at shooters and will play on easy anyway. We've talked about it before, so you know what I'm looking for.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Hey DArt, you're probably the best one to answer this:
Does Bioshock3 have the engrossing atmosphere of Bioshock1 (and to a little lesser extent, Bioshock2)? Don't really care about the shooter mechanics since I totally suck at shooters and will play on easy anyway. We've talked about it before, so you know what I'm looking for.

It certainly has a similar power in terms of atmosphere. But it's also a very, very different setting - and it kinda depends on what you enjoy.

Personally, I think Rapture was a more powerful place - but I'm also a very big fan of underwater environments. Rapture is oppressing and you feel extremely isolated when playing. Columbia is pretty much the opposite - and works through contrast instead, kinda like The Shining by Kubrick. It's bright and open - but deals with similarly serious/dark themes and concepts in terms of story.

Technically, especially on a good setup - Columbia is much more detailed and the vistas can be truly breathtaking. The scope of the levels is also a big step up.

Another way of putting it would be to say that Rapture is one of the main characters in Bioshock from start to finish - where Columbia is more of a supporting character after the first 2-3 hours of play. But that's not so much because Columbia is less interesting. It's because the two protagonists are that well written and engaging.

But, in the end, it comes down to personal preference - as always.

As for the quality of the story and the writing - I have to say Infinite is far superior. Not just because it deals with what I consider more interesting themes - but also because it follows through on its premise. Bioshock had a better premise and a more compelling antagonist - but it utterly failed to follow through on it - and the ending was weak.

Not so in Infinite, where the experience as a whole actually improves steadily as you progress and - certainly for me - peaks at the very end of the game. That almost never happens, and it's a big reason why I'd rate it so highly.

I find a satisfying ending with real closure is vital - and I have to wonder why they're so damn rare in computer games.

It's been 3 days or so since I completed it - and I've been unable to enjoy anything else since then. It still lingers and I'm still going from one game - back to Infinite - and then to another game. I can't settle, because there are no other games that will give me anything like Infinite right now.

DArtagnan

I managed to push even deeper into bioshock infinite, but I just couldn't get passed the final battle on 1999 mode. Maybe I could've tried some more, but I've had enough kills and retrys to last me for some time. So I've seen the finale of the game on youtube, and it's amazing. Beautiful and a nice mindf*ck. I'm already planning on starting the game again on an easier difficulty just to try see all the hits and forshadowing that they do for the ending.

Spoiler

One thing I don't get is, how can Compstock clear Booker's debt if he's from a different dimension? I understand that at the baptism, in one universe Booker becomes Compstock and in the other he sulks around for 20 years before being contacted by the Letuces trying to get him to come to Columbia and end Compstocks tyranny. And that's as far as I noticed their only connection. I hope it's not something like Booker was in debt to some people, and Compstock paid those people off in Booker's name. Or maybe it is that simple. Anyway, great ending. And I also loved the jump to Rapture. Very cool.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Not so in Infinite, where the experience as a whole actually improves steadily as you progress and - certainly for me - peaks at the very end of the game. That almost never happens, and it's a big reason why I'd rate it so highly

Very, very well stated. I would say that the Ayn Rand-ishness of Bioshock provided a strength, but due to the source material also a weakness and lack of depth.

But as you say in Infinite you have characters so well done and fully realized that it carries you through everything. I was also fearing that 'Bloodlines moment' when the growing battle would envelop and overtake the plot … but fortunately it didn't happen.

I keep reading explanations of further details that I seem to have missed about Bioshock Infinite, and I'm blown away.

Spoiler

One cool thing is that the Luteces seems to have tried getting you to Columbia to stop Compstock multiple times, but you failed every previous time. This was hinted, but I didn't pay attention, when they make you flip the coin and they keep count how many times it landed on it's tails. Also, I forgot about this but the two Luteces, right at the start of the game, talk about you failing this quest before. But I forgot all about that.

Very cool how the game is littered with hints. I have to replay it again, and I'm buying the season pass as we speak. God I'm excited.

For me, it's more about the control than the graphics. I can't even imagine trying to play Bioshock with analog thumbsticks.

There's been some decent looking console-exclusive shooters over the years that I've tried to play to no avail due to the control schemes. I just can't seem to get the hang of playing a FPS with a Playstation or Xbox gamepad.

Originally Posted by JDR13
For me, it's more about the control than the graphics. I can't even imagine trying to play Bioshock with analog thumbsticks.

There's been some decent looking console-exclusive shooters over the years that I've tried to play to no avail due to the control schemes. I just can't seem to get the hang of playing a FPS with a Playstation or Xbox gamepad.

Dito. The only ones I managed to play through were Uncharteds, and that was mostly because of how good the games were, and because they were third person, meaning it was a bit easier. I could never do first person. Plus I think most people that play first-person on a console use the targeting adjusts, which just seems awful.

I would love to have the Uncharted series and Red Dead Redemption on PC. It would amazing I think.